The lower option-selection accuracy indicates that distinguishing the verified answer from plausible alternatives remains more challenging than detecting hallucinated responses.
Abstract
Large language models can generate fluent responses to Islamic questions while introducing factual errors that are difficult to identify. This paper presents our system for \textsc{HalluScoring 2026} Task 2.1, \textit{Islamic Hallucination Detection and Find the Truth}. The task requires a unified two-step prediction: determining whether an Arabic answer generated by an LLM is hallucinated and selecting the verified answer from six closely related candidate options. We use the Islamic knowledge dataset provided by the shared task, which contains 600 question--answer instances, including 341 hallucinated and 259 non-hallucinated answers. Our system is based on the fine-tuned \texttt{google/gemma-4-12B-it} model and uses deterministic decoding during inference. The generated outputs are normalized to extract the hallucination label and the selected option. The system achieves a Macro-F1 score of 0.928 and a label accuracy of 0.935 for hallucination detection, together with an option accuracy of 0.895 for answer selection. These results yield a combined score of 0.912, demonstrating strong performance across both stages of the task. The lower option-selection accuracy indicates that distinguishing the verified answer from plausible alternatives remains more challenging than detecting hallucinated responses.
HalluTruthQA-4K provides a reusable resource for hallucination detection, span-level error localization, explanation generation, factual verification, and the broader evaluation of factual reliability in Arabic language models.
S. E. Bekhouche, Abdessalam Bouchekif, H. Telli et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent Arabic answers, yet factual errors remain difficult to detect, localize, explain, and verify. Existing hallucination benchmarks often provide response-level labels, with limited support for identifying the exact erroneous content, explaining why it is incorrect, or selec...
Abdessalam Bouchekif, M. Zighem, S. E. Bekhouche et al.· 2 citations
The results suggest that no single architecture guarantees factual reliability, however, contextual grounding and verification mechanisms can significantly improve response quality and highlight the importance of combining language modelling capabilities with grounding strategies to support the development of more reli...
This work builds a retrieval test collection for Arabic fiqh and uses it to evaluate dense, lexical, hybrid, fine-tuned, and madhhab-aware retrieval strategies, and presents an error analysis showing that the main challenge is distinguishing answer-bearing passages from topically similar passages that do not contain th...
Somaya Eltanbouly, Heba Sbahi, Samer Rashwani et al.· 0 citations
HallDetect, a lightweight, reference-free, and black-box framework for hallucination detection, is presented, a lightweight, reference-free, and black-box framework for hallucination detection that is evaluated not only on summarization but across a broader range of source-grounded generation settings.
Achir Oukelmoun, N. Semmar, Gaël de Chalendar· 0 citations
Probing can be a cost-effective triage mechanism for routing LLM answers to human review and quality control procedures in high-stakes financial applications and shows that among confident answers, those for which all eight resamples agree, 15-23% are wrong on FinQA.
R. Wang· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.